Something going on

[DustinsDad]

What they posess that is salvific comes FROM the Catholic Church.

What they posess that is damnable DOESN’T come from the Catholic Church. So if you hold to some things that are salvific and some things that damn one to hell - where ya’ goin when you die? How much of Christ can you reject and remain in Him? And of those salvific elements - are they salvific if they continue to refuse to enter the Church Christ founded?

Or are are they only salvific if said elements move them to enter the Church - as is traditional teaching?

Or are they only salvific if they are inculpably and invincibly ignorant, AND are baptized AND die without mortal sin on their soul - which is also traditional teaching?

And if you agree with the above two points regarding traditional Catholic teachings - where are they stated in the CCC? Where is the eternal DANGER of remaining separated mentioned in the CCC? Where is the urgent call to conversion in the CCC?

…and is itself a call to union with the Catholic Church.

Well the elements better be calls to union (i.e. calls to convert and enter the Catholic Church) - because there ain’t no one in the hierarchy calling them to enter or convert anymore!

Please PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong here (I want to be proven wrong!), but can you cite one example of Pope John Paul II issuing a call to conversion to the Catholic Church? Or did he prefer, rather, to remain silent and “let the elements do the talking”?

In this instance, the CCC hasn’t contradicted what the Church taught before, but further explained it.

Hasn’t contradicted it…just left some “offensive” parts out…thus it is less straightforward and more confusing (reading in light of the older catechisms and papal encyclicals puts it in proper context. But this proper context is often shocking to folks who have only been raised with the CCC and similar post VII “stuff”. They kind of suffer from an identity crisis - not knowing exactly the true awesome nature of the Church they belong to…the One True Church Christ founded.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[thecoach]

What they posess that is damnable DOESN’T come from the Catholic Church. So if you hold to some things that are salvific and some things that damn one to hell - where ya’ goin when you die? How much of Christ can you reject and remain in Him? And of those salvific elements - are they salvific if they continue to refuse to enter the Church Christ founded?

Or are are they only salvific if said elements move them to enter the Church - as is traditional teaching?

Or are they only salvific if they are inculpably and invincibly ignorant, AND are baptized AND die without mortal sin on their soul - which is also traditional teaching?

And if you agree with the above two points regarding traditional Catholic teachings - where are they stated in the CCC? Where is the eternal DANGER of remaining separated mentioned in the CCC? Where is the urgent call to conversion in the CCC?

Well the elements better be calls to union (i.e. calls to convert and enter the Catholic Church) - because there ain’t no one in the hierarchy calling them to enter or convert anymore!

Please PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong here (I want to be proven wrong!), but can you cite one example of Pope John Paul II issuing a call to conversion to the Catholic Church? Or did he prefer, rather, to remain silent and “let the elements do the talking”?

Hasn’t contradicted it…just left some “offensive” parts out…thus it is less straightforward and more confusing (reading in light of the older catechisms and papal encyclicals puts it in proper context. But this proper context is often shocking to folks who have only been raised with the CCC and similar post VII “stuff”. They kind of suffer from an identity crisis - not knowing exactly the true awesome nature of the Church they belong to…the One True Church Christ founded.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

WOW, was this thread hijacked!!!

 

[Cat]

The OP asked specifically for resources where he/she could learn more.

And now this thread has turned into a debate/discussion about which catechism is best. Hoo, boy.

Maybe I’m a yayhoo, but I would like to suggest that rather than plowing through a catechism and struggling with doctrine vs. dogma, perhaps the OP might enjoying reading some of the currently popular Catholic apologists or listening to their CDs.

Scott Hahn has a wonderful series of very readable books out. So does Tim Staples. And David Currie. And converts like Michael Cumbie and Rosalind Moss are delightful–full of information.

I know, I know–traditionalists will probably say that these converts are full of misconceptions and that there are errors in their writings. Well, there you go. Scott Hahn has an awful lot of scholarship in his work, and so does David Currie. And the Lord must be using their work, since so many converts credit them for getting them interested in the Catholic Church. I guess the Lord isn’t as picky as we are, and uses humans to accomplish His Will even when the humans mess up. (e.g., Peter, the First Pope of the Catholic Church)

Converts such as myself would have been daunted if someone had handed us a CCC or any other catechism and said, “Here it all is!” I would say that although the CCC is understandable, it is hardly easy reading. I know a college professor who suggests reading it in small bites because it’s just too much to swallow all at once.

But reading and listening to these apologists, most of whom are converts, was a great stepping stone that helped me and others to understand the Catholic Church. I do read and study the Catechism now, but I’m glad that these “easier” writers paved the way.

Also, if you can go to one of the Catholic Family Conferences, go! You will learn tons and come away with a lot of excitement for your Church, your faith, and your Lord!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dustins Dad:

I’m not going to try and cut/paste each response and my response to it. I’ll try and answer here and if I miss anything, you can inquire about it. I also have things I’ve go to do today, so I can’t spend hours on this.

First, let me clarify: It isn’t that there isn’t a lot that I find troubling in the Church today. It isn’t even just Cardinal Kaspar, though I’ve no idea why he’s permitted to run around saying some of the stuff he says. I’m troubled when I hear even Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, intimate that the Jewish covenant is still salvific (an interview with Raymond Arroyo) because God said the Jews would be saved. Now, I have no trouble believing that the Jewish covenant is salvific to the extent that it finds it’s fufillment in the New Covenant, but on it’s own, persisting in waiting for a different Messiah, I don’t see how that can be. If the old covenant is salvific, then why did Jesus have to die?

I’m troubled by the assertion that we and the Moslems worship the same God. Granted, they’re monotheists, but they couldn’t possibly be worshipping the God we worship because the God we worship wouldn’t have taken Mohammed as His last and greatest prophet and relegated His Incarnate Son to a lesser role in which He only “appeared” to die, etc., in other words, either we’re right or they’re right. Both traditions have too much that is mutually exclusive and too integral to each of their respective hearts to both be true.

Odd place to cut off, but I just got the chance to spend the day with my godson, so I’ll have to try and respond more latter.

 

[DustinsDad]

… perhaps the OP might enjoying reading some of the currently popular Catholic apologists or listening to their CDs.

I’ve got no real problem with this.

Scott Hahn, Fr Corapi, Tim Staples, the folks here at Catholic Answers -they all played a great part in my journey back to the Church. Hahn, Staples and the CA folks armed me greatly with much knowledge of the faith with which to defend the teachings of the Catholic Church. Fr. Corapi’s talk on Confession (in the Catechism series) was probably most significant on moving me back to truly appreciating and partaking in the Sacrament of Confession.

And I still give out Hahn’s conversion tape and CA tracts to non-Catholics whenever we have the ol’ “theological discussion” - this is usually with serious protestants (by that I mean protestants who take their faith seriously and care to discuss the faith with others - like Catholics, most don’t bother) or door-to door Mormon missionaries that come a knocking.

All that being said, I would have to admit that as much as I learned from these folks (of which I’ll be eternally greatful), it wasn’t until “discovering tradition” (I don’t know how else to describe it when one finds the TLM, the older papal encyclicals, the older catechisms, etc) that I really really understood certain aspects of the faith. It just solidified my faith even more. It’s like these “older” resources were presenting the faith in such a straightforward, un-nuanced, and “no-holds-barred” manner. I don’t know…it was just refreshingly clear. If such clarity in teaching had been given to me all my life, perhaps I wouldn’t have wandered so far away for so long a time (but then again, knowing my own sinful and weak self, I probably would have!).

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

JKirk:

You still haven’t responded to what I asked you: Why do YOU seem to constantly cast a doubt on the post-conciliar Church, the Mass, etc.?

Well, I responded to this one a bit earlier - fact is I agree with much of the “traditionalist” concerns. I think much of them are serious and well founded and need not be denigrated, ridiculed, or passed off as irrelevant. I don’t know if this “casts a doubt on the Church” so much as it may be an example of casting a doubt on current practices and approaches.
JKirk:

How does THAT help people like the OP?

Well, for folks who have been raised and taught with current sources - concerns and even shock can arise after examining “traditional sources”, Follks need to know that they aren’t stupid, crazy, disobediant, or schismatic if they have problems reconciling the two.
JKirk:

Because regardless of which documents we each like to quote or which catechism one or the other favors, he and you and I will have to continue living in the post-conciliar Church and contending with the post-Conciliar Church. Vatican II isn’t going anywhere and neither is the CCC (esp. under the current pope, who helped write the CCC).

Well, perhaps we’ll see some legitimate clarifications if enough of us make noise Not only are we lay people still debating what Vatican II actually meant - these debates are going on in the upper levels of the Vatican and in the episcopate. Check out the differences in interpreting the documents among, say, and Archbishop Burke and a Cardinal Mahoney or Kasper.
JKirk:

Yup, at some point, “traditionalists” are going to realize that with the constant denigration of the popes, the council, the Mass, the Catechism, they sow the seeds of collapse for the very ideas that THEY profess to believe in. They engender distrust for the institutional Church, they claim the Church has lied about Fatima, that she mislead the people regarding “pro multis” and the Mass as a whole, they spread distrust of the Church about a whole host of issues. They shouldn’t be surprised when to find that few people will also trust their version of the institutional Church.

Valid concerns. But if large portions of the “institutional Church” are in fact, wrong in their practice and approach and in their interpretation of Vatican II, what are the faithful to do? Some will speak out no matter what, some will speak out only on certain levels (for instance, speaking out against local liturgical abuse of their NO, but not against a bishop who does the exact same thing), and some just won’t care one way or the other. It’s a difficult situation we are all in - a situation that (as always) requires much prayer.

Keep in mind also, that what you hear here on a traditional sub-forum is going to be different that what you would hear from the same folks “out in the street”. These are for the most part “in-house” issues and alot of us traditional type folks have alot of this stuff bottled up - we tend to vent them here because there arent’ many other areas where we can. Most lay Catholics folk don’t know about our concerns and don’t care.

And when I’m talking to a non-Catholic in a “theological discussion”, these issues aren’t discussed in detail - unless the non-Catholic is aware of the problems (I’ve met not a few who think the Church “changed it’s teachings” after VII and a few have parents or grandparents who left the Church after VII). In these cases, I just leave it as problems with the human side of the Church - and that the current “crisis” is but a storm that will pass. It makes it hard to lead folks to conversion, however, when they think the Church itself doesn’t teach that they need to anymore - and quote the hierarchy and the current catechism in defence of their position. Oy!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[SemperFidelis]

Well, I responded to this one a bit earlier - fact is I agree with much of the “traditionalist” concerns. I think much of them are serious and well founded and need not be denigrated, ridiculed, or passed off as irrelevant. I don’t know if this “casts a doubt on the Church” so much as it may be an example of casting a doubt on current practices and approaches.

Well, for folks who have been raised and taught with current sources - concerns and even shock can arise after examining “traditional sources”, Follks need to know that they aren’t stupid, crazy, disobediant, or schismatic if they have problems reconciling the two.

Well, perhaps we’ll see some legitimate clarifications if enough of us make noise Not only are we lay people still debating what Vatican II actually meant - these debates are going on in the upper levels of the Vatican and in the episcopate. Check out the differences in interpreting the documents among, say, and Archbishop Burke and a Cardinal Mahoney or Kasper.

Valid concerns. But if large portions of the “institutional Church” are in fact, wrong in their practice and approach and in their interpretation of Vatican II, what are the faithful to do? Some will speak out no matter what, some will speak out only on certain levels (for instance, speaking out against local liturgical abuse of their NO, but not against a bishop who does the exact same thing), and some just won’t care one way or the other. It’s a difficult situation we are all in - a situation that (as always) requires much prayer.

Keep in mind also, that what you hear here on a traditional sub-forum is going to be different that what you would hear from the same folks “out in the street”. These are for the most part “in-house” issues and alot of us traditional type folks have alot of this stuff bottled up - we tend to vent them here because there arent’ many other areas where we can. Most lay Catholics folk don’t know about our concerns and don’t care.

And when I’m talking to a non-Catholic in a “theological discussion”, these issues aren’t discussed in detail - unless the non-Catholic is aware of the problems (I’ve met not a few who think the Church “changed it’s teachings” after VII and a few have parents or grandparents who left the Church after VII). In these cases, I just leave it as problems with the human side of the Church - and that the current “crisis” is but a storm that will pass. It makes it hard to lead folks to conversion, however, when they think the Church itself doesn’t teach that they need to anymore - and quote the hierarchy and the current catechism in defence of their position. Oy!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Great post! I agree with you here as well as in your other posts. There are no erroneous teachings in the CCC, but it can get quite confusing at times. As someone who has recently decided to convert I came across several stumbling blocks on my way. The CCC paragraph about EENS and Muslims being included in the plan of salvation really started to baffle me, and really made me question as to whether Catholic teaching had really changed.
I began to read into sedevacantist material because of the lack of clear and concise teaching in the VII world. After stumbling upon a Baltimore Catechism everything changed for me. I finally was able to reconcile pre-VII with VII and everything that has occured since. I do not believe that the Church has ever changed its teaching, but I do believe that much of the way dogma is introduced and presented today leads to error. Lord knows the comments I’d get if I brought up the Church’s teaching on EENS at RCIA. Probably something along the lines of “oh the Church doesn’t teach that anymore since VII.” They would probably use the ambigious writings of VII and the CCC to back up their claim. I have read much of VII and the CCC and I know it can be reconciled with tradition, but that is after many, many hours of reading and studying. I do not believe it is best to start someone off with these sources. Not all teaching sources are created equally. To think that the CCC isn’t ambigious compared to the “older stuff” can be attributed to not thinking clearly. I think catechisis with the Baltimore, St. Pius X, or Council of Trent Catechisms would be far better for those inquiring into the Faith; I know it would have been better for me.

 

[Like]

And when I’m talking to a non-Catholic in a “theological discussion”, these issues aren’t discussed in detail - unless the non-Catholic is aware of the problems (I’ve met not a few who think the Church “changed it’s teachings” after VII and a few have parents or grandparents who left the Church after VII). In these cases, I just leave it as problems with the human side of the Church - and that the current “crisis” is but a storm that will pass. It makes it hard to lead folks to conversion, however, when they think the Church itself doesn’t teach that they need to anymore - and quote the hierarchy and the current catechism in defence of their position. Oy!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

If you don’t think all this bashing of the Church and VC II just read the last post on this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2841242#post2841242
I know this post is probably a waste of time, but just maybe…

 

[DustinsDad]

If you don’t think all this bashing of the Church and VC II just read the last post on this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2841242#post2841242
I know this post is probably a waste of time, but just maybe…

I don’t understand your post.